Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Havoc mentioned earlier that you can explore the Gnome. Gnomes start the water up from the roots. Then the Angels take over. Tree fairies only work at NeverLand when Michael Jackson is there.
What does this question mean? What is a spontaneous eruption of different species? Could you cite a source that speaks English?
Do sharks sh*t in the woods?
I not only got the magic number, but I coined a new word, "redoods". A prize for the best daffynition.
Here's a tribute to you, js. You never resorted to boorishness
Hey, I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, the way we might wish for things to be someday is not how things are now, and hence we have the problem of teaching today's children now, not forty years down the road when the conservative revolution is complete. Therefore, I suggest we teach science in science class, as it is defined by scientists, and not by lawyers, political activists, or pastors.
You also err when it can be inferred that you believe that macroevolution is physical, observable reality.
Oh, no. But let us continue.
Many persons have observed caterpillars metamorphizing into butterflies. No one has observed a land mammal evolving into a whale.
No one - no non-participant, anyway - observed OJ murdering his ex-wife. No one observed Pacific tribes carving the Easter Island statues. No one observed the collision of the North American and Pacific plates to cause the rise of the Rocky Mountains. No one observed glaciers covering what is now modern-day Chicago. And yet we know all of those things happened, because we piece together the available evidence and find the best explanation that fits that evidence. So it is with evolution. Again, I point out that if you limit yourself to believing things that are directly observable, you're not going to believe very much - you can't see your house when you're not home, so what right do you have in believeing that it is there when you're not? None whatsoever, by the standard of evidence you're setting up, and yet I doubt you seriously consider the proposition that it winks out of existence when you're not around to keep an eye on it.
...there are also some problems with the theory, as the intelligent design advocates have pointed out.
No. Of the few proposed, none of them - not one - has yet withstood serious scrutiny by scientists.
Scientific consensus changes over the years. Newtonian physics was the standard until the late 19th Century; since that time, certain propositions of that school have been refuted and are no longer accepted.
Really? Which ones?
You must drop this apparent notion that scietific theories are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Theories are approximations, and some approximations are better than others. Newton's physics was, in fact, an excellent approximation - so good, in fact, that the same equations he derived, with slight relativistic corrections, are still used 400 years later to fly space probes around the solar system.
Was it a perfect approximation? It turns out that it was not - Einstein discovered certain unusual conditions that were governed by a different set of laws, but this does not mean F=ma suddenly stopped working sometime in the 1920's. And so the synthesis of Newtonian physics with the additional elements that Einstein discovered makes up a large portion of what we now consider physics. At no point was Newton "wrong" - he was merely incomplete. As is the theory of evolution, of course. Is our understanding complete? No. But the bulk of the theory, the guts of it, has withstood 150 years of serious scrutiny, much as Newton's physics has - and like Newton, "incomplete" does not mean "wrong".
The fact that I accept the propositions of the Bible, in their historical and grammatical context and in light of authorial intent, as the ultimate truth has no bearing on my concept of God or the physical universe.
Apparently it does - evolution is real, whether your worldview allows you to see it or not. Sorry.
I think I'll quit for the evening, while I'm still ahead.
"Kwazy Kwanzaa" may of course be sung to the tune of "Happy Birthday."
I will as well. I was just pulling yourleg.You took it well
Is he trying to sell it or simply presenting it.
After checking past posts I realized that THEY were trying to sell. More precisely,they were more interested in demonstrating their knowledge and in attempting to have a little fun,than attempting to understand a opposing belief,view or position.
Better yet, try a working version of the link here. ;-)
Ask a frog in hot water. If it could speak, it would probably say it had no idea the presence of heat had so much to do with its condition. Heat being the natural state of things, cold being the "miracle" with no scientific basis in reality.
"Jadedness" brings moral baggage, IMO, but maybe that's the right word.
I just ruined another keyboard on account of you.....
;-)
make that two keyboards....
You make my point. It is all religion. And again I say and noone replies, if you are going to teach one, then teach them all. Why the exclusion in favor of the exclusive presentation of evolution?
Still waiting for the reply...tap...tap...tap...
I dunno, Fester.
Daily I am reminded of my own frailty, the vastness of the universe and its ancientness.
I cannot stop thinking that God is truly beyond my mental grasp if He has created so much over so long a time all to be brought to fruition 2000 years ago.
I look forward to being in His Presence one day.
How can I lose sight of that?
How can I find that dull and boring?
I think that those who find faith dull and Gods creation lackluster need to get back out and engage life in all its beauty and dread.
It is the safety of modern life that dulls the mind so that we cannot sense anymore what surrounds us; God's Living Presence.
But still it is there.
no, it doesn't "piss me off", that you and I *believe* differently. How 'bout you? ;^D
Nice information. But that tells us what happens. It does not tell us how it happens.
In other words, you can't answer the question so you are reply with a cute little answer that makes you look stupid. Sorry, I don't mean that as an insult. But it really is a stupid reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.